2.18  Conflicts of Interest

Doctors may have conflicts of interest that alter the advice they give. This problem has grown rapidly over the last 20 years as government  research has moved into the private sector. Science is big business, a costly enterprise commonly financed by corporations and driven by the logic of the market. Entrepreneurial values, economic interests and the promise of profits are shaping the scientific ethos (Nelkin, 2002).

According to Abbasi and Smith (2003), the relationship between the doctor and the drug companies is resulting in bias in the decisions made about patient care.
Doctors too easily convince themselves that their professional integrity is immune to seduction by drug companies.  There is growing evidence that doctors’ prescribing habits are influenced by drug companies, either through discussions with sales representatives or through sales drives dressed up as medical education.

Roberts and Smith (1996), commenting on medical research from the tobacco industry, stated scientific enquiry rests on the investigation that is presented to other scientists for their review and judgment. “Every sponsor of every study has an agenda to promote”.

However, peer review cannot guarantee the validity of a study.  The Griffen et al. DPT study appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association in March 1990. According to Coulter (1991), the Griffen study was funded by a British DPT vaccine producer.  In that issue Dr James Cherry, as well as peer reviewing the study, wrote an editorial urging revision of the contraindications to the DPT vaccination and an end to the federal vaccine-injury compensation system for children injured or killed by mandated vaccines. Cherry called pertussis vaccine encephalopathy a “myth” and blamed its perpetuation on “the sensationalistic media” and the organisation of a group of parents who attributed their children’s illness and deaths to DTP vaccine. Cherry’s editorial failed to mention that he earned $50,000 a year testifying on behalf of manufacturer defendants being sued by parents of children  damaged by vaccine. Dr Cherry’s department at University College Los Angeles also received $850,000 in “unrestricted funds” from Lederle Laboratories, now a multinational called Wyeth.

David Elliman and Helen Bedford who have written many articles in support of immunisation programmes, especially MMR, have both been sponsored to attend and speak at educational meetings and have conducted research financed by manufacturers of vaccines (Bedford and Elliman, 2000).